 |
| Cong. Giffords (wikipedia) |
A Special Editor’s (Extended) Note:
It has been just over a week since a mad gunman ripped apart a scene that illustrates one of the central tenets of our democracy. After an initial rash of caustic finger-pointing and demands that we learn something it, the country might actually be able to start the healing process.
Sarah Palin did not bring this tragedy upon Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the six who lost their lives and the other twelve that were injured. Any direct or even indirect blame was not fair to her or to the others on the right that have spoken in strident, even violent rhetoric over the past two years. In the immediate aftermath at least some of those attempting to come to grips with the tragedy were acting out of shocked delirium. Others, though just as horrified very likely jumped to the conclusion that this was part and parcel of the rising tide of an overly vitriolic political environment.
Frank Rich, a New York Times columnist, wisely noted that in the aftermath of the shooting, the left scrubbed their own overly violent rhetoric while the right vociferously denied that anything they said or did could even be criticized lest the First Amendment be threatened. While the left’s attack was dishonest and the right’s defense disingenuous, what Rich felt spurred this reaction was the undeniable fact that regardless of blame, there had been a rising tide of violence emanating from the right, not unlike the violence that came from the left in the 60’s. It has gotten bad enough that even Fox's Shepard Smith and conservative David Frum have noted and/or criticized it.
To name a few events, some Rich mentioned and others mentioned here: the vandalism of Cong. Giffords office following health care reform; a man has been arrested for threatening Cong. Jim McDermott of Seattle; death threats against Sen. Patty Murray D-WA escalated to the point that a man was sent to jail for the incendiary remarks; a man flew a plane into an IRS building. The list goes on. These events share a common thread: anti-government sentiments common among the hard-core conservative right. Again, nobody is saying (and if they are, then they wrong) that one does not have the right to complain, be angry or be passionate in their objections. However, must the pitch and tone be such that in the words of Cong. Neal everything’s “Armageddon”?
While Sarah Palin’s crosshairs map paired against the infamous tweet, “Don’t retreat…RELOAD!” were, to be kind, pushing the envelope, they in all likelihood had no apparent role in Jared Loughner's attack. Indeed, we might assume his grudge predated Sarah Palin’s entrance to the stage. Rather than merely condemning the wisdom of her map, while noting her innocence (or at least guilt no greater than any other actor in the political scene, left or right), many leapt right on her. Some were more measured and again I would mention Keith Olbermann’s wholesale condemnation or violence and violent rhetoric, which included his own.
As such Sarah Palin had plenty of reason to be upset when she finally responded to the tragedy with her eight minute video. Many were wondering if Sarah Palin would respond in such a way that would elevate her above the rut of unpopularity that has plagued her ever since Tina Fey donned her persona. Still, a mere five days after a bullet went through a Congresswoman’s brain, the former Alaska governor three quarters of her video licking her own wounds. Less than two minutes of that eight minute video even discussed the victims and Cong. Giffords name was mentioned sparingly. Let’s leave the unfortunate blood-libel thing for others to discuss.
As Frank Rich noted, Palin’s comments about tone and stridency not being new is correct, however, there is the problem with the megaphone of the Internet turning everything into “Armageddon.” Where Palin went off the reservation, however was the notion that exercising a First Amendment right to criticize one’s free speech runs afoul of free speech. Since when was it un-American to question what Sarah Palin believes when she is questioning what I believe? That said, since when, regardless of history, is it wrong to say that violent terminology may not be serving our politics or our nation well?
It has been just over a week since a mad gunman ripped apart a scene that illustrates one of the central tenets of our democracy. After an initial rash of caustic finger-pointing and demands that we learn something it, the country might actually be able to start the healing process.
Sarah Palin did not bring this tragedy upon Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the six who lost their lives and the other twelve that were injured. Any direct or even indirect blame was not fair to her or to the others on the right that have spoken in strident, even violent rhetoric over the past two years. In the immediate aftermath at least some of those attempting to come to grips with the tragedy were acting out of shocked delirium. Others, though just as horrified very likely jumped to the conclusion that this was part and parcel of the rising tide of an overly vitriolic political environment.
 |
| Frank Rich (NY Times) |
To name a few events, some Rich mentioned and others mentioned here: the vandalism of Cong. Giffords office following health care reform; a man has been arrested for threatening Cong. Jim McDermott of Seattle; death threats against Sen. Patty Murray D-WA escalated to the point that a man was sent to jail for the incendiary remarks; a man flew a plane into an IRS building. The list goes on. These events share a common thread: anti-government sentiments common among the hard-core conservative right. Again, nobody is saying (and if they are, then they wrong) that one does not have the right to complain, be angry or be passionate in their objections. However, must the pitch and tone be such that in the words of Cong. Neal everything’s “Armageddon”?
While Sarah Palin’s crosshairs map paired against the infamous tweet, “Don’t retreat…RELOAD!” were, to be kind, pushing the envelope, they in all likelihood had no apparent role in Jared Loughner's attack. Indeed, we might assume his grudge predated Sarah Palin’s entrance to the stage. Rather than merely condemning the wisdom of her map, while noting her innocence (or at least guilt no greater than any other actor in the political scene, left or right), many leapt right on her. Some were more measured and again I would mention Keith Olbermann’s wholesale condemnation or violence and violent rhetoric, which included his own.
 |
| Tina Fey (wikipedia) |
As Frank Rich noted, Palin’s comments about tone and stridency not being new is correct, however, there is the problem with the megaphone of the Internet turning everything into “Armageddon.” Where Palin went off the reservation, however was the notion that exercising a First Amendment right to criticize one’s free speech runs afoul of free speech. Since when was it un-American to question what Sarah Palin believes when she is questioning what I believe? That said, since when, regardless of history, is it wrong to say that violent terminology may not be serving our politics or our nation well?
Posts
